Christine Normandin
Saint-Jean, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, let us look at the Prime Minister 's record so far. He betrayed the climate. He betrayed our culture by leaving billions of dollars on the table. He made multiple concessions to Donald Trump with nothing to show for it.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we take stock of this parliamentary session, there are two things that Quebeckers will remember. The first is how the Prime Minister betrayed the environment by putting an end to Canada's fight against climate change and by pushing the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie to resign.”
“Mr. Speaker, July 1 is fast approaching and, when it comes to tackling the housing crisis, there is a prominent local figure who stands out from the crowd and refuses to give in to fatalism.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are confusing their parliamentary majority with the right to do what they want, when they want. The time allocations never seem to stop, which is especially odd considering that their bills are certain to pass.”
“Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister has nothing but contempt for the work of Parliament. He is ramming through draconian laws using closure. He is concentrating all powers in hands of cabinet. He is using those powers to deregulate industry for the benefit of primarily American companies or to suspend certain laws.”
“His dreams are never an end in themselves, but rather the starting point for great achievements. As he prepares to welcome a new addition to his family, I send him my warmest wishes for happiness. Just like his projects, this new adventure holds great promise for the future. I would like to thank Jean-François.”
The complete record
Every one of 373 lines we hold for Christine Normandin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 8.
“Section 30 of the code states that the commissioner must submit any proposed guidelines relating to this code to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which, after study, tables a report in the House. Subsection 30(2) states the following: (2) Any guidelines and forms approved by the committee shall be reported to the House and shall come into effect when the report is concurred in by the House. This confirms the practice of requiring forms to be submitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for approval and, ultimately, to the House itself. The fact that forms were published on the commissioner's website without review and approval also appears to violate subsection 30(3), which requires the forms to remain confidential until they are reported to the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the question of privilege raised last Friday by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes concerning the posting of new forms on the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's website. If what the member alleges is true, then that is a clear violation of the rules established by the House, which could lead to a finding of contempt of Parliament as a result of a serious infringement of the House of Commons' rights and powers. That is all the more concerning because it would mean a violation of an explicit requirement in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons that stems from a deliberate choice by the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have forgotten what it even means to work together for the common good. They are telling us to vote for their budget even though they have completely ignored Quebec's needs. Now they are shocked to be told that they need to get to work. One week remains before November 4. The Liberals are well aware of our demands concerning health care, seniors, housing, access to home ownership, infrastructure and repayment of the $814 million that was stolen from Quebeckers. The real question is, do they even want our support?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government pointed fingers at the opposition again this past weekend, complaining that it will not have enough support to pass its budget. As a friendly reminder, the people elected a minority government. That means that voters wanted the government to work with the opposition parties and reach agreements. The government can come to an agreement with the Conservatives, with us or with independent members. Instead of complaining and threatening an election, when will the government get to work?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleague what political games and a reluctance to collaborate look like. It is when the Prime Minister meets with party leaders to discuss their budget expectations, when a speech has already been written for that very evening in which he completely ignores their requests. There is not a word about seniors or health care, nor any commitment to transfer money unconditionally to Quebec for infrastructure or for social and community housing. There is nothing about the $814 million that was stolen from Quebeckers to write vote-buying cheques to Canadians. Why is the Prime Minister playing political games instead of addressing Quebeckers' needs?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the lead-up to the budget, the government has accused the opposition parties of playing political games. I need them to explain to me how we are playing political games by demanding that the government provide funding for health care, support seniors with the cost of living and address the housing, home ownership and infrastructure crisis. Our demands are based on the needs of Quebeckers. They are public and they have not changed. If the government is ignoring those demands, then who is the one playing political games?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Université du Québec à Montréal quickly cancelled a lecture the preacher was scheduled to give on its premises, and this should be applauded. However, fans of hate speech, misogyny, homophobia and the like will still be able to attend seven of his lectures across Canada, including in Quebec, in Brossard. This kind of speech has no place in Canada or Quebec. However, the federal government protects it in the Criminal Code. When will the Liberals finally have the political courage to abolish the religious exemption that allows hate speech?”
“Mr. Speaker, a preacher named Uthman Ibn Farooq is on a speaking tour in Canada despite his history of hate speech. For example, he thinks it is okay to capture women and use them as sex slaves. That kind of speech got him banned from the U.K. and even from Canada. However, he will have no trouble making the same kinds of remarks during his video conferences because they are protected under the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code exempts hate speech from punishment if it occurs within a religious context. Is the government finally going to abolish this religious exemption?”
“Thanks to their dedication, caring and creativity, they are shaping tomorrow's society and contributing to its success. They are building the future. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, and especially on behalf of all the little munchkins whose lives they forever change, I offer my heartfelt thanks to early childhood educators.”
“Mr. Speaker, from October 20 to 26, Quebec is celebrating Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Week. I am sure that everyone in the House knows someone who deserves to be honoured today. I know that my colleague, the member for Mirabel , is thinking about his mother-in-law, who is an educator. Personally, I want to give a shout-out to Ms. Awa, whom I entrusted with my own little guy this morning. I appreciate her kindness and her warm smile. For our little ones, early childhood education professionals provide their first real experience of school. Early childhood educators do not just keep watch over our little ones. They awaken their minds, they listen to them and they offer reassurance and encouragement. Day in and day out, our children are in good hands. However, the role of early childhood educators goes even further than that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can hardly imagine that we are any further ahead today on tariffs. The Prime Minister 's press conference with Donald Trump focused less on the economy and more on the president's whims, such as sending the National Guard to Chicago. Meanwhile, here at home, tariffs are going up, not down. Workers in industries like lumber and truck manufacturing are worried about their future. Today was a test for the Prime Minister. Do the Liberals really think the Prime Minister passed that test?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's meeting with Donald Trump was supposed to be about tariffs, but the goal was to eliminate them, not add more. To date, the Prime Minister has not had any wins in Washington, but he has suffered two defeats in the past seven days: new tariffs on our softwood lumber and, since yesterday, tariffs on trucks, which threaten Paccar in Sainte‑Thérèse. That is zero wins and two more defeats for the Quebec economy. Members will recall that, during the election, the Prime Minister boasted about his negotiating superpowers. Where are those superpowers now?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister announced that he was going to focus on discussions about steel. Steel is important, but Quebec's aluminum and forestry sectors are important too. Not only is the Prime Minister not addressing these issues in his discussions, but the federal aid announced in August for the forestry industry is still not available. While he is in Washington, the Prime Minister needs to talk about aluminum and lumber. However, in the meantime, here in Ottawa, could he at least release the financial assistance he promised for Quebec's forestry industry?”
“Mr. Speaker, we commend the Prime Minister on his visit to Washington. We asked for it. It was time. More importantly, however, it is time he kept his election promise to make some gains for Quebec's economy. So far, it has been nothing but one concession after another. He capitulated on the digital services tax. He dropped the global minimum tax on the American tech giants. Talks are even being held to allow more U.S. milk into the country. Despite all these concessions, not only did Quebec get nothing out of the bargain, but Donald Trump has increased tariffs on our lumber. When will we see some progress for Quebec?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are so out of touch and so irresponsible that they did not even anticipate the crisis they themselves created. For 10 years, they did nothing to modernize Canada Post: no real consultation and no real public debate on the future of this essential service, just silence and inaction. Ten years later, the Liberals wake up, set fire to the place, paralyze the postal service and deprive the public of an essential service. How are they going to fix this mess?”
“Mr. Speaker, a week ago, the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement announced the end of postal services as we know them, including the end of home delivery and the closure of post offices. Not surprisingly, postal workers declared a general strike. The minister's announcement literally signals the end of their industry. Now, passports are being held at post offices, cheques are not being delivered and elections are being postponed or may not happen at all. What did the Prime Minister think would happen?”
“Mr. Speaker, the regions are also being abandoned in the federal government's reforms to Canada Post. Today Ottawa announced that it is lifting the moratorium on closing rural post offices. This decision will set us back 30 years. People in remote areas rely on Canada Post, particularly to deliver medication. Canada Post absolutely cannot reduce services in rural areas when these are often the only services available. Will the government ensure that Quebeckers in the regions will not be abandoned?”
“Mr. Speaker, mail is an essential service, but the Canada Post reform the federal government just announced seems to forget that fact entirely, and in doing so, it has forgotten thousands of Quebeckers. Some seniors need to get their mail delivered to their home, especially those outside the major cities. People with disabilities are also worried about this. Can the government guarantee all Quebeckers who feel abandoned today that they will continue to get the home delivery services they deserve?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are doing more than just challenging Bill 21. They want a say in all Quebec legislation. Their factum implies that Quebeckers lack the judgment to be allowed to pass their own laws without Ottawa's oversight. As proof, they offer utterly apocalyptic examples, such as the possibility that Quebec might use the notwithstanding clause to legalize slavery or arbitrary executions. Those who cannot come up with an argument resort to exaggeration. Given that their factum contains no arguments, perhaps they should just withdraw it.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' intervention in the challenge to Bill 21 is a constitutional power grab, as their statements today showed. For them, the problem is more than just secularism. For them, the problem is that Quebec can use the notwithstanding clause to pass laws that Ottawa does not agree with. The Liberals want to weaken this clause, the only tool that allows Quebec to not be subordinate to Ottawa and its courts. They want to transform the government in Ottawa into a superior government and the one in Quebec City into an inferior government. Will they withdraw from the challenge and put an end to this constitutional power grab?”
“Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I missed the beginning of the question, but I think I got the gist of it, and I just answered it, in part. The courts should not be tasked with examining the use of the notwithstanding clause. We are not saying that there should not be any discussion on the notwithstanding clause. We are saying that the government is using the wrong forum.”
“Madam Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, we are not saying that the government should not disagree on the notwithstanding clause. It absolutely has the right to do that. However, if it wants to get rid of it, it should hold constitutional talks instead of using the courts to sidestep what could be a very meaningful political debate. We think that is cowardly, and that is what we are speaking out against. If the government wants to discuss the notwithstanding clause, it should invite us to constitutional talks. We will certainly have a few minor requests to make.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and I am happy he asked it in excellent French. The government never misses an opportunity to deflect. However, our role is to hold it accountable for all of its actions, and we can do so on several fronts. That is what we are trying to do today. We can talk about how the provinces need to be able to make their own decisions, and we can simultaneously hold the government accountable for its bad decisions on housing, immigration and the economy. As the saying goes, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. That said, I agree with my colleague that the government never misses an opportunity to sweep some of its failures under the rug.”
“Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary just demonstrated that the Attorney General's position goes well beyond the specific question of secularism. What he really wants is to deprive the provinces of their autonomy, which they won in a hard-fought battle during constitutional negotiations around section 33. On the issue of excessive, pre-emptive or disproportionate use of the provision, this is a matter for the provincial legislatures, which are subject to a tool that, despite its flaws, is the best we have, namely, democracy. The way to overturn a government's decision is to call an election and remove that government.”
“If the Attorney General does not like laws that use the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively, he should just support a party that is opposed to this, or follow Pablo Rodriguez' example and run in Quebec. One thing is clear: This debate is not one that should happen in a courtroom.”
“It is telling us that the charter, which forms part of the Constitution, is unconstitutional and that subsection 4 of section 33 has no application. In any event, its notion of the permanence of the law is arguable. We are legislators. The government makes laws. Laws can be changed, amended or repealed, if that is the will of the elected representatives, which, in turn, reflects the will of the people, a will that is equally subject to change. When this government talks about the permanence of a law, it is talking about a concept that is foreign to politics. We have the power to amend anything, including laws that use the notwithstanding clause.”
“We recognize that it has the right to try to review the notwithstanding clause, but that would require an amendment to the Constitution, which would be done by negotiating with Quebec and the provinces in the context of constitutional talks. As my colleague who spoke before me pointed out, this is not a matter to be debated before the courts. If the government wishes to debate the use of section 33, we would be happy to sit down with it. Then it can talk to us all it wants about slavery, firing squads, child exploitation and dictatorships, and at that point, we will ask it to try to be serious. I would like to remind the government about something else concerning section 33. The government contends that this section is to be used in a temporary, time-limited manner.”
“Is this what respecting the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom means? It can certainly not be said that the government is leading by example. This is the government that was negligent in invoking the Emergencies Act and suspended fundamental rights, which are also guaranteed in the charter, for some time. This is the same government that is condescendingly judging Quebec, a generous and welcoming society, and which suspects us of being xenophobic and racist and of having authoritarian inclinations. This factum is an insult. It says more about how the federal government views Quebec than it does about secularism and the use of the notwithstanding clause. We are asking the government to withdraw from this case and take its surreal factum with it.”
“The Attorney General is telling us that a statute that would use the notwithstanding clause to allow firing squads and slavery would be going too far. We may agree, but why should his factum include unrealistic things, if not to demonstrate that the use of the notwithstanding clause is necessarily in conflict with the values of justice and democracy? In reading the factum, it is hard to believe that the notwithstanding clause has been in effect for the past 43 years. One has to wonder how people have survived this far, where the gulags are and how we have managed to protect our rights. This government, which is lecturing Quebec and provinces, has just introduced Bill C‑5 , a bill that states that all other legislation does not apply to specific government projects. It is a piece of legislation that circumvents all other legislation.”
“Ottawa is telling us that the notwithstanding clause can be used to ban trade unions. Ottawa is also using newspaper arguments, even though its failure to take action is primarily responsible for the closure of the majority of regional newspapers in Quebec and Canada. The federal government cloaks itself in its vision of freedom of worship, yet it does nothing to crack down on hate speech under the guise of preaching. There is no excuse for these examples in a matter that concerns Quebec legislation. These examples should make us leery, and that is exactly what Quebeckers should be. The factum of the Attorney General even goes as far as to talk about executions and slavery. The Factum states, “...a statute that invokes s. 33 to allow arbitrary executions or slavery would violate a constitutional limit...”.”
“However, it does not take the notwithstanding clause to weaken newspapers, unions, and rights and freedoms. The federal government is able to do this without resorting to a notwithstanding clause. The government is in the process of hypocritically taking away federal workers' right to strike, as we can see from its excessive use of binding arbitration and section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. As a reminder, I would point out that Quebec passed its own anti-scab legislation in the late 1970s, while the federal government has only just done so 45 years later. Incidentally, we could talk about all the gaps and loopholes in that bill, but we would need a whole other sitting. (1035) The Bloc Québecois introduced at least 11 bills along those lines, and all of them were defeated.”
“2(d) of the Charter , could disappear if all trade unions were declared illegal and prohibited from engaging in any activity for a prolonged period. According to the Attorney General, the notwithstanding clause could open the door to a dictatorship, as if Quebec had nothing better to do at night than dream up ways to get around sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Attorney General's choice of examples is not insignificant. The Attorney General mentions places of worship to send the rather bizarre message that Quebeckers are so anti-religion that they might go so far as to ban churches, synagogues and mosques. That is practically what the Attorney General is telling us. That is the not-so-subtle subtext of this Liberal pamphlet.”
“My colleagues may think I am delusional, that I am fantasizing and making things up, and I can understand that, but I am going to cite a passage from page 12 of the factum: The loss of means essential to the exercise of a right or freedom could produce effects that would subsist beyond the expiry of any declaration under s. 33. For example, the freedom of the press, guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter , could disappear if independent newspapers and media were prohibited from carrying on business for a prolonged period. Similarly, freedom of religion, guaranteed under s. 2(a) of the Charter , could disappear if places of worship were declared illegal for a prolonged period. And freedom of association, guaranteed in s.”
“In any event, it would no longer be protected by the notwithstanding clause. Foresight of consequences is part of intent, and it is our opinion that challenging the secularism law is also part of the Attorney General's intent, even though he does not say so in so many words. It is important to keep this in mind when reading the Attorney General's factum. The Liberal government's position is that the use of the notwithstanding clause is a step towards the end of freedoms. In its view, the notwithstanding clause is an undemocratic weapon with the potential to wipe out freedom of the press, unions and freedom of religion. It believes that when the notwithstanding clause is invoked, journalists can be silenced, churches can be shuttered and organized labour can be outlawed.”
“The Attorney General of Canada filed his factum challenging Bill 21 with the Supreme Court. He will say that is not accurate, but it is. He is challenging Bill 21. He can say that he is simply challenging the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause, but since he is doing it in the context of the challenge to Bill 21, he is clearly challenging the Act respecting the laicity of the State. The member for Beloeil—Chambly , who is also the leader of the Bloc Québécois, likes to say that foresight of consequences is part of intent. The Attorney General is therefore indirectly challenging Bill 21, which was passed in 2019. If the Supreme Court were to agree with the Attorney General's argument that the notwithstanding clause can be used only for a period of five years, the consequence would be that Bill 21 could be struck down.”
“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this important motion, and I want to thank my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for moving it today so that we can debate it. I also thank him for his very enlightening speech. Like him, I will take the liberty of rereading the motion for the benefit of everyone here and the many people who I know are tuning in at home. That the House: (a) call on the government to fully withdraw from the legal challenge of Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the State before the Supreme Court; (b) call on the government to withdraw its factum filed on September 17, 2025, with the Supreme Court contesting Quebec's right to invoke the notwithstanding clause; and (c) denounce the government's willingness to use the Supreme Court to take constitutional powers away from Quebec and the provinces.”
“Mr. Speaker, the federal government is attacking much more than secularism at the Supreme Court, it is attacking Quebec's parliamentary sovereignty by amending the Constitution without debate through the courts. This is a blow to the basic function of the notwithstanding clause, which is to protect democracy from a government of judges. If the federal government wants to amend the Constitution, then let us debate it in our parliaments and in the public arena, not in court. Will it withdraw its factum and stop using judges against Quebec's parliamentary sovereignty?”
“Mr. Speaker, Ottawa's brief to the Supreme Court challenging Bill 21 is the stuff of conspiracy theories. In their challenge against state secularism, the Liberals are claiming it would create a slippery slope that could lead to nightmare scenarios, such as the banning of places of worship. They even suggest that Quebec could reinstate slavery or executions. It says a lot about how Canadians see Quebeckers: They should not get too much parliamentary sovereignty or they might be crazy enough to bring slavery back. If the government wanted to trash the reputation of Quebeckers, what better way to do it than with this brief. Will it withdraw it?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. It is a myth invented to keep Quebec from deciding for itself. The federal government is openly asking the courts to nullify part of the Constitution with no political debate and no say from politicians, in a bid to take fundamental powers away from Quebec. This is not a legal debate. It is a constitutional power grab against Quebec's right of self-determination that is hypocritically being carried out through the courts. Will the Liberals have the guts to fight their own political battles instead of weaponizing the justice system?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is not only Bill 21 and state secularism that Ottawa is attacking at the Supreme Court, it is worse than that. By attacking the notwithstanding clause itself, Ottawa is attacking the ability of our National Assembly to vote democratically on any law that is supported by Quebeckers without having to beg Canada for permission first. This is an attack against secularism, but it is also an attack against our historical ability to protect the French language. It is an attack against our values and against the sovereignty of our legislative assembly. Will the Liberals drop this offensive attack against Quebec?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Beaches—East York is certainly not the only Liberal who is uncomfortable with Bill C-5 . There are other Liberals who did not go into politics to force pipelines on Quebec without its consent and without a credible environmental assessment. There are other Liberals who did not go into politics to undermine reconciliation efforts by forcing energy projects on indigenous people. There are other Liberals who did not go into politics to copy Pierre Poilievre's ideas and pass them with a closure motion thanks to the Conservatives. Will these Liberals ask the Prime Minister to let Parliament do its job instead of ramming through Bill C-5?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is taking advantage of the distraction caused by the G7 summit to force his Bill C-5 through under a gag order. It is an attack on Quebec and indigenous peoples. Fortunately, some people are paying attention. Yesterday, the Assembly of First Nations threatened to take legal action if Bill C-5 is passed without adequate consultation with indigenous peoples. Also yesterday, a former Liberal minister voted against his caucus, saying that the Liberals' approach would embarrass even Stephen Harper. Will the Liberals take some time to answer questions about Bill C-5 instead of ramming it down our throats here in Parliament?”
“Mr. Speaker, during question period, you asked my colleague from Repentigny to withdraw comments that you deemed to be unparliamentary when he was talking about the fact that the Liberals lied during the election. His comments were therefore about events that occurred outside the House. I would like to know if it is possible to clarify whether the rules about parliamentary language extend to things that may have been said outside the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives want to pass a Liberal bill under a gag order and Danielle Smith supports the federal Liberals in Ottawa, it is clear that the oil companies are the ones who are really behind Bill C‑5 . Quebeckers did not vote Liberal to have Conservative policies that benefit oil companies and Danielle Smith imposed on them under a gag order. If Quebeckers had wanted Pierre Poilievre, they would have voted for him. Do the Liberals realize that they are betraying Quebeckers?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister thinks that he is Pierre Poilievre. He wants to impose closure on Bill C‑5 so that he can make all the decisions about energy projects. He wants to be able to unilaterally decide, by executive order, which projects will go ahead in the national interest, and he wants to be able to unilaterally define what the national interest is based on his personal opinion. He wants to impose pipelines on Quebec, and he wants to do it without any debate or studies. Never in his wildest dreams did Pierre Poilievre consider doing such a thing. Will the Prime Minister stop imitating him and withdraw his closure motion?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing my Liberal colleague say over and over again that, during the election, they promised to have the bill enacted before July 1. I find that a little presumptuous. It implies that, during the election, either the Liberals thought that they would form a majority government, which is not the case, or they really did not take the work of members of Parliament into account in their election platform. Which one is it?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my leader for his excellent speech. It is always a pleasure to hear him speak. I would like to hear more of his thoughts on the Liberals' line about how they have 44 Quebec MPs in the House. We know that the Prime Minister cavalierly disregards democracy and the role of parliamentarians. There may be 44 MPs, but there could just as well be 72 or 128 or 343, and they would all be shut down by the gag order. What message does that send? What message does it send when the government systematically ignores the unanimous voice of 125 Quebec MNAs?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is going to have to leave the banker behind and start acting like a democrat. Bill C-5 raises major concerns about the environment and Quebec's sovereignty over its own territory. If there is one bill that needs to be studied thoroughly, it is this one. The Prime Minister has no right to move closure on Bill C‑5 when the bill gives him unprecedented, exceptional powers. Is the Prime Minister's intention to bypass Parliament and govern by executive order like Donald Trump?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has given notice of a gag order on Bill C‑5 . The House has been sitting for just three weeks, and he already wants to ram through a bill, and not just any bill. Bill C‑5 gives him the power to rule by decree on fossil fuel projects. Bill C-5 completely guts environmental assessments. Bill C‑5 threatens Quebec's jurisdiction and the rights of indigenous peoples. It makes no sense to let it go through without debate, studies or hearing from witnesses. Will the Prime Minister let Parliament do its job?”
“It would also open up opportunities in new international markets, to the extent that Canada is dealing with a president south of the border who is giving it a hard time. Canada could engage more widely with the European market.”